Prop. 31 does more harm than good

We can all agree that major reforms to our state budget process are needed. However, the way Proposition 31 is written would cause far too many severe and unintended consequences, particularly for California's at-risk populations.

The passage of Prop. 31 would allow for local governments to implement programs as they see fit, without following state standards already in place. Prop. 31 would end up jeopardizing funding for services intended to assist California families being crushed by the economic crisis.

Programs like CalWORKS, that give minimal cash aid and services to needy California families, could end up on the chopping block even further than it has already been cut.

Prop. 31 will enable the creation of a "patchwork" of services that could change depending on which city or county you're in, is highly undesirable. For example, if one county decides to spend all its funds on fatherhood programs, instead of giving out cash assistance and welfare-to-work services, families would then face a difficult choice on where they should live and if they should sacrifice their low-wage positions.

This would end up costing the state, and has unintended consequences.

If a family had no means to relocate, they would be denied their means of sustenance, during their time of utmost need.

During a time when the safety net intended to protect the most at-risk residents of California is being weakened, allowing local governments to circumvent state rules can only be viewed as dangerous and inappropriate.

Imagine low-income families, with no reserve savings to speak of, entirely dependent on state health services for survival. How terrifying to not know if the welfare-to-work program you depend on for survival might be suddenly cut off.

This is the reality many low-income families are already facing, and if we allow local governments to override state and federal provisions, it will only worsen this issue. This would unfairly penalize families in counties or cities that implement different qualification standards than others.

Prop. 31 proposes a draconian state-spending cap, along with pay-as-you-go budgeting. They will result in drastic impacts for all of us.

The "Pay/Go" provision means we cannot meet the future needs of our state without gutting existing programs. The alternative is to raise revenue, which is a two-thirds vote. California needs more majority rule, not more minority rule. Prop. 31 hands even more power to a small group of politicians who consistently oppose any and all new solutions.

These pay/go provisions would impede our ability to meet rising health care costs, which are growing at a rate faster than inflation. Our state's senior population is growing quickly and the pay/go provision would limit our state's ability to provide health care and other vital services.

Additionally, spending caps will hinder state opportunities to receive federal funding. One example is of this is the CHIP/Healthy Families program. A decade ago, California would have missed out on covering close to a million children, if spending caps had been in place. Programs like these often receive matching funds, or even a 2:1 match, if the state invests in them.

New rules imposed on our governmental process will just lead to more inflexibility, along with unforeseen consequences. Prop. 31 adds another limitation on the Legislature's ability to manage the state finances on top of the three budget caps already in law. Rather than make state government more transparent, Prop. 31 makes California less transparent.